Near the end of President Obama’s State of the Union address last week, he turned, as expected, to advocating the three top federal-level priorities of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby and their pet politicians. Those are, in no particular order, banning so-called “assault weapons” (Obama, perhaps understandably, does not refer to them as “regime change rifles“), banning ammunition magazines capable of holding 11 or more rounds (11 rounds being a “massive” number, according to Obama), and banning all private gun sales.

Citing high profile shootings dating back to the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, his oft-repeated rallying cry (see sidebar video) while calling for these new infringements on that which shall not be infringed, was, “They deserve a vote!” (with “they” being the wounded survivors, and the families of those killed).

Let’s take a look at just what “they deserve a vote” on, according to Obama. One of these “deserved” votes is on whether or not to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Those would be the very same same firearms that theDepartment of Homeland Security refers to as “Personal Defense Weapons,” as they order 7,000 of them. Actually, that’s not quite true. DHS does not want “the very same firearms” that Obama wants banned–they want select-fire rifles, with a fully-automatic fire capability.

They also “deserve a vote,” we’re told, on the continuing legality of “massive” magazines (that’s eleven or more rounds, remember). It turns out that DHS has already submitted its own “vote” on those, too, wanting 30-round (nearly “triple massive”) magazines to go along with its 7,000 “Personal Defense Weapons.” That “deserved” vote would presumably be on Rep. Carolyn “What’s a Barrel Shroud” McCarthy’s (D-NY) H.R. 138, and its Senate companion bill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) S. 33. Those bills are both called the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013,” and both exempt even retired “Only Ones,” and both had might as wellexempt anyone with a 3-D printer.

Finally, they “deserve a vote” on whether or not to ban private sales, despite the fact that of the shootings Obama mentioned specifically, the vast majority, if not all, seem to have been committed with guns sold with an FBI-administered background check.

They “deserve a vote” on these measures? Fine. Here’s one: “No.”

And how about a look at what Obama apparently does not believe the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity “deserve a vote” on? What do Virginia Tech survivors and the loved ones of the fallen not “deserve a vote” on? That would be measures like H.R. 35 and H.R. 133, ending schools’ status as designated “gun free zones” (which remain “gun free” only until someone bent on evil decides he wants a nice, juicy, soft target). Then again, why should Obama care, his kids are not subject to state-mandated defenselessness, and will not be for years.